Hardcastle v Santos Limited

Link copied
Case Copied 14 min read

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Hardcastle v Santos Limited [2017] NSWDC 137
Hearing dates: 18 and 19 May 2017
Date of orders: 19 May 2017
Decision date: 19 May 2017
Jurisdiction:Civil
Before: P Taylor SC DCJ
Decision:

(1)   Defendants’ notice of motion filed 21 February 2017 granted.
(2) The Second Amended Statement of Claim be struck out pursuant to r 14.28 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 on the basis that no reasonable cause of action is disclosed.
(3)   Order the plaintiff to pay the defendants’ costs of the proceedings.
(4)   Grant liberty to the defendants to make any application in respect of a special costs order within seven days by notice to the plaintiff and my associate.

Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – nuisance – misleading and deceptive conduct - application to strike out – summary dismissal – non-compliance with a court order – no reasonable cause of action disclosed
Cases Cited: Concrete Constructions (NSW) Pty Ltd v Nelson (1990) 169 CLR 594
Farah Constructions Pty Ltd v Say-Dee Pty Ltd (2007) 230 CLR 89
General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125
Gold and Copper Resources Pty Ltd v Newcrest Operations Ltd [2013] NSWSC 28
Wardley Australia Ltd v State of Western Australia (1992) 175 CLR 514
Watson v Foxman (1995) 49 NSWLR 315
Category:Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Philip Julian Hardcastle (plaintiff)
Santos Limited (first defendant)
Santos NSW Pty Ltd (second defendant)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr T Bagley (defendants)

  Solicitors:
Santos GLNG (defendants)
File Number(s): 2014/338782
Publication restriction: None

Judgment

  1. Philip Hardcastle, who is self‑represented, owns rural land adjacent to land on which is located, close to the common boundary, a small gas‑fuelled power station.  The power station existed prior to the purchase by Mr Hardcastle in about June 2005, although it is unclear whether and to what extent it has physically changed since that time.  Mr Hardcastle sues Santos Limited (“Santos”) and Santos NSW Pty Ltd, a company previously known as Eastern Star Gas Limited ("ESG") that was purchased by Santos in 2011.

  2. Mr Hardcastle's complaints can be listed as follows:

  1. Misleading statements by a former executive of ESG to Mr Hardcastle in 2005 that:

  1. the power station was exempted from noise controls in operating an approved 12‑megawatt power station; and

  2. Mr Hardcastle would be kept informed of proposals regarding the power station.

  1. Misleading statements by ESG to the Department of Planning:

  1. to the same effect as in (1)(a) above in an application by ESG for an upgrade of the power station to 40‑megawatts; and

  2. as to the likely location of any dwelling to be constructed by Mr Hardcastle on his land.

  1. Unconscionable conduct by ESG in failing to build a noise‑dampening wall, at a cost of approximately $400,000 to $500,000, along Mr Hardcastle's southern boundary to protect him from the noise from the power station.

  2. An actionable nuisance arising from noise in excess of 35 decibels onto Mr Hardcastle's "homesite" on his land near…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Hardcastle v Santos Limited and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2017] NSWDC 137
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hardcastle v Santos Limited involved a dispute regarding nuisance and misleading and deceptive conduct. The plaintiff, Hardcastle, brought proceedings against Santos Limited. The case was heard in a court that had jurisdiction over matters concerning misleading and deceptive conduct under the Australian Consumer Law. Santos Limited applied to have the Second Amended Statement of Claim struck out, arguing that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action and that the plaintiff had failed to comply with a previous court order.

The court was required to decide whether the plaintiff's amended statement of claim disclosed a reasonable cause of action and whether there was any justification for departing from the usual rule that a party should not be permitted to amend a pleading without leave of the court. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether the plaintiff's failure to comply with a prior court order warranted the dismissal of the claim.

The court found that the plaintiff's amended statement of claim did not disclose a reasonable cause of action. The court determined that the claims were speculative and did not provide sufficient evidence to support the allegations of misleading and deceptive conduct. Furthermore, the plaintiff's non-compliance with a prior court order demonstrated a disregard for the court's authority and the legal process. As a result, the court granted the defendants' notice of motion and ordered the Second Amended Statement of Claim to be struck out. The court also ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs of the proceedings and granted the defendants liberty to apply for a special costs order within seven days.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Defendants’ notice of motion filed 21 February 2017 granted.

(2) The Second Amended Statement of Claim be struck out pursuant to r 14.28 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 on the basis that no reasonable cause of action is disclosed.

(3) Order the plaintiff to pay the defendants’ costs of the proceedings.

(4) Grant liberty to the defendants to make any application in respect of a special costs order within seven days by notice to the plaintiff and my associate.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.